Debates in the Senate on the Eighteenth Amendment, 1917

July 31, 1917

NATION -WIDE PROHIBITION.31 min read
1272: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1272 (Senate1917.Jul31.1272)

Yours, truly, C. M. MILLs, County Attorney. PHILLIPSBORG, KA::-I'S., January 4, 1911. Hon. W. H. THO!'.rPSo~.

1274: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1274 (Senate1917.Jul31.1274)

DEAR SIR: Yours of Decambe1· 30 arrived to-day . In reply will say I think the prohibition law a good one and has helped Kan as a great deal. I know it has helped Phillips County to be more thorough and progres ive in a business way than before we had prohibition.

1279: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1279 (Senate1917.Jul31.1279)

Pottatcatomie County, KanB., January 8, 1911 .

1280: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1280 (Senate1917.Jul31.1280)

Hon. WILLIAM H. THOMPSO:-i, . Wa.shington, D C.

1281: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1281 (Senate1917.Jul31.1281)

MY DEAR Senator: I have your letter December 30, 1916. We find that prohibition in this locality is a real success. . At one time, about 16 or 17 years ago, we had open saloons . We do not have 1 drunk . where . b~gt 3h0adth:~· . ar~~ . ~g~c;vi~utl{r~: . ~~~rM . . out . - ~i~ includes Christmas week and New Year's Day.

1282: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1282 (Senate1917.Jul31.1282)

You may use this letter in any way you see fit.

1286: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1286 (Senate1917.Jul31.1286)

COTilT Cli-1.!.\IllERS OF Jt'DGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, llutchinson, Kans ., January 8, J911 .

1287: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1287 (Senate1917.Jul31.1287)

Hon. WILLIAM H. THoMPson, • Washington, D. 0.

1288: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1288 (Senate1917.Jul31.1288)

DEAR SE. 'A TOR: .A.nsw ring yours of December 30 concer ing the e!l'ect of the prohibitory law in Kansas, , I ba~e to atlvi. e you that very few of cbe liquor ca es in this district g l.'t into the district court for trial. There are frequently a number of appeal from the police court in liquor ca es, but very few of them ever come to trial.

1289: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1289 (Senate1917.Jul31.1289)

To me the prohibitory law is the same as any other law on the statute book, and I have not given it any more attention than any other criminal law. Prohibition is settlE-d in Kan ·as anrl is as well enforced a it could be under the exi ting conditions, and I see no occasion !or any agitation concerning the prohibitory law of Kansas. . Th ere is, oi course, a great deal of liquor shipped into Kansas, , and there is and probably always will be some bootlegging . . • ·o (ar a I know, violations of the prohibitory law are almo t entirely by bootleggers, and most of the liquor cases .are disposed of in police court .

1290: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1290 (Senate1917.Jul31.1290)

I have not seen a drunken man in Kansas for so many ye.ars that I ba ve not any recollection of when I did ~c>e one.

1291: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1291 (Senate1917.Jul31.1291)

My time is taken up with the work of the three counties in this dis- trict, and I have spent no time in drawing any fine distinction as to the results of the prohibitory law any more than I ba ve the results of the laws against larceny or any other crime, and all of this talk about prohibition not being effective in Kansas is imply nonsense and not worthy of very 'rnurh con !deration.

1298: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1298 (Senate1917.Jul31.1298)

B ellct;il'le, Kans., January 10, 1!Jr1. Senator WILLIAM H. THOMPSON,

1300: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1300 (Senate1917.Jul31.1300)

DEAR Sm: In answer to your letter of December 30, 1916, . regard ing the old question of prohibition in Kansas, I have held the office of sheriff in till county for over three years and have been closely connected with it for over six year , so believe that I am in e. po ition to know something of what prohibition means to us a law-enforcing officers. We, •being near the Nebra ka line. are troubled from there more than any other place, and have looked forward to the time when it goes dry, knowing that this means a relief to us in our work. Certainly we have some drunks. But I believe that a majority of these men, who get on a drunk perhaps once a month, had we saloons would ue what I would call bar flies, and continually have tbPlr y t m soak<>d, neglect their families all the time or at least a big portion of the time. Twe, they send and get it, mo tly from ills ouri, where they take men, get them drunk, and murder them, as in the Sims case, ebor a.t least uppo ed to have been murdered, with no que tion but t at be was drunk. Would this have happened had Missouri been a dry State? Is there any ncb crime-breeding boles in the State of Kansas as you find in Kansas City, Mo.? Certainly not, and not becau e the people are in general wor e in Mis . onl'i, but becau e this class of people follow where the booze is. Where you have the open saloon, your children are forced to pa by the e places, ec the things which they ought not to see. In Kansas if they are brought up to observe liquor, it l.f'l the fault of the paJ·Pnt.

1301: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1301 (Senate1917.Jul31.1301)

We have city of about 2,300. I do not believe that there has been a drunk in the city jail for iX month . Have them once in a while, but, In my opinion, any man is better oil' to get on a drunk, get over l.t, go oark to work. and attend to business and his family, and will cn.u . e less trouble :wd suffering than one who is continually oaked and eon oecomcs a confirm dru~kard. I simply say this in behalf of those few who do get tanked. We all know that i! prohibition in Kansas was a failure, that if it was a menace to the people that this great agitation for national prohibition would never have developed. We also know that our neighboring States-Colorado and Nebraskawould not have voted and carried for prohibition as they did. There is no argument to it. One who will argue this with you either has an ax to grind, and such fellows can never be convinced, or he is too Rhallow to understand one s arguments and can not be convinced. Prohibition in Kansas is a success, and had I some of the arguments used 1>:1 the opposition I might be able to point to some facts which would enable you to refute their arguments.

1302: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1302 (Senate1917.Jul31.1302)

Being a Kansan, no doubt all of these few views I have mentioned you are familiar with, and no doubt know them as I see them, but in response to your letter submit this, whether it is of any help to you or JJOt.

1307: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1307 (Senate1917.Jul31.1307)

Ron. WILLIAM Il. THOMPSON, Washington, D. a.

1308: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1308 (Senate1917.Jul31.1308)

DEAR SIR : I have been police judge in this town two years and only six men have been brought into court for being drunk. TWs io; a town of 2,500. A drunken man on the streets you seldom see. · In looking back over the docket 25 or 30 years every other page was a drunk.

1309: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1309 (Senate1917.Jul31.1309)

Stick to prohibition and the State will stick to you.

1313: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1313 (Senate1917.Jul31.1313)

OFFICE OF COUNTY .ATTORNEY OF RICE COUNTY,

1316: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1316 (Senate1917.Jul31.1316)

DEAR RrR: * * * It has been my observation as a law-enforcing officer of this State, that prohibition does actually prohibit and thereby lessens crime, drunkenness, and the like, resulting morally and economically advantageous to the people of this State.

1317: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1317 (Senate1917.Jul31.1317)

The records of any criminal court will show that since the promulgation of a prohibition law the number of prosecutions have fallen off from 50 to GO per cent, and that can be traced directly to our stringent prohibitory laws.

1318: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1318 (Senate1917.Jul31.1318)

It is folly to argue otherwise and against the question of national prohibition. .All far-seeing men can see the necessity of such a law, and it is !IDly a question of time until national prohibition will actually be here. Kansas has found prohibition a success as have other States who have tried it, and it only remains for a few wet States and Senators to see the light. I give you authority to use this in the Senate, should you care to do so.

1323: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1323 (Senate1917.Jul31.1323)

Manhattan, Kans., January 3, 1911. Senator WM. H. THOMPSON,

1325: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1325 (Senate1917.Jul31.1325)

DEAR Sm: In reply to your letter of December 30, 1916, as to whether prohibition in Kansas is a success or a failure in preventing crime and drunkenness and also is it advantageous to the citizens of the State. morally and economically speaking.

1326: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1326 (Senate1917.Jul31.1326)

I have been connected with the sheriff's office for the past four years, two years as a deputy and have been sheriff myself for two years, and my opinion is that prohibition in Kansas is a decided success in all the ways above mentioned.

1327: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1327 (Senate1917.Jul31.1327)

Trusting this is the information your desire, I am,

1328: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1328 (Senate1917.Jul31.1328)

Yours, very truly, c. E. S~HERi\IERHORN, •

1329: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1329 (Senate1917.Jul31.1329)

Sheriff of Riley Ootmty, Kans. MANIIATTAN, KANS., January 5, 1917. Senator WM. II. THOMPSON,

1331: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1331 (Senate1917.Jul31.1331)

MY DEAR SmNATOR: Your much appreciated letter of January 2 received, and in reply would say that I am more than proud of the fact that I reside in a dry State and only hope that soon it may be Nationwide.

1332: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1332 (Senate1917.Jul31.1332)

As to the question of "Does prohibition prohibit " my answer is, yes, notwithstanding that in · Manhattan, a city of 10,000, including Kansas State Agricultural College students. We have an occasional drunk on the streets and in my court, but when the facts are uncovered .some person posing as his friend has given it to him or a bootlegger sold it sojourn. to him or he has been to Kansas City, Mo., recently and brought the liquor with him, an evil that we would be relieved of if Missouri or the Nation went dry.

1333: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1333 (Senate1917.Jul31.1333)

You are at liberty to use this communication in the Senate if you so wish. Thanking you for the inquiry, I remain,

1337: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1337 (Senate1917.Jul31.1337)

LA CROSSE, KAXS., January 12, 1917. Senator W. H. THo:,rPSON,

1339: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1339 (Senate1917.Jul31.1339)

DEAR SENATOR: In reply to your letter of the 30th of December, I tru s t you will pardon the delay which was unavoidable.

1340: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1340 (Senate1917.Jul31.1340)

Prohibition does prohibit in Kansas very thoroughly. The only place it fails is when wet old Missouri sends in her "booze" and defeats om· law through the interstate-commerce traffic. The bootlegger and the joint are a thing of the past in our State, barring a few towns and during the harvest season when a few bootleggers appear. The officers are promptly after these, however, and they are soon lodged in jail.

1341: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1341 (Senate1917.Jul31.1341)

If the Nation would adopt prohibition, statistics show that there would be a decrease of about 60,000 in the number of arrests per year, 20,000 in the number of insane, and 40,000 in the number of paupers $1,400,000,000 would \)e released from the purchase of booze to be invested in shoes, coats, and food. The good story is long, and it is a n·uc story-tbat's the best of it.

1342: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1342 (Senate1917.Jul31.1342)

Let's dissolve the partnHship between Uncle Sam and booze. It is disgraceful alliance. I congratulate you on your stand. Go after them with the truth. It is sure to win. With best regards, I am,

1343: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1343 (Senate1917.Jul31.1343)

Very truly, yours, FRANK U. RUSSELL, County .Attorney.

1346: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1346 (Senate1917.Jul31.1346)

Ru - Russell, Kans., January 22, 1917. Ron. W. H. THo::upsox,

1348: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1348 (Senate1917.Jul31.1348)

My DEAR SENATOR: I received your letter of December 30 relative to the question of prohibition in Kansas, and your inquiry a:s to its effect in my observation as an officer of the law.

1349: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1349 (Senate1917.Jul31.1349)

1 have been very busy in court here, and with other matters, and unable to answer the question with the fullness that its merits deserve . I came to this region in the center of the State with my parents as a small boy 40 years ago, and saw prohibition go into effect. I have lived under it ever since, have been county attorney, and interested in enforcing the law, and judge for more than 10 years in a district that stretches from the Colorado · Jine JUSt half way to the east line of the State. Prohibition has grown steadily in favor with the people from the time of its adoption as an amendment to the constitution in 1880 up to the present time. The measure carried by less than a . majority of all the voters at the election, although having a majority of those voting on the proposition. Sentiment has changed so that now any candidate on any measure based upon opposition to prohibi- ' tion receives so few votes 'iS to be almost classified as scattering . The divided sentiment at first resulted in much hostility to the enforcement of the law and indifferent prosecution in early days. In strongly prohibition communities the law was well enforced, but in general it was not so well enforced, and in communities that were strongly hostile it was practically not enforced at all. In a number of cities and a few other communities joints ran almost exactly like saloons in license States for a number of years; but all the time sentiment was growing stronger and stronger in favor of the enforcement of the law. Grauu- . ally prosecuting attorneys and sheriffs and other officials were elected upon promises to do their duty without hesitation in the enforcement of the law. .At each session of the legislature the law was strengthened ip. some particular leading to this better enforcement.

1350: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1350 (Senate1917.Jul31.1350)

The courts became more and more strict in their interpretation of the spirit rather than the letter only of the constitution and statutes. Cities, which were the greatest rebels, were gradually brought into line by stringent legislation which compelled the cities to obey the State law insttad of licensing saloons under one guise or another; then the State administration began to make its contribution by going into wet communities and compelling the enforcement of the law by criminal prosecutions, by injunctions against the places where the unlawful liquor business was carried on, and by ousting from office officials of cities and counties who would not do their duty. This step was perhaps the most far reaching in its influence. Then the legislature utterly forbade the sale for any purpose and thereby abolished the drugstore joint, which had been the last refuge of the traffic as a system, and by which drug stores were permitted to sell liquors for mechanical, medical, and scientific purposes, and those seeking to evade the law, both buyer and seller, were not scrupulous about the representations made as to the purpose for which liquor was wanted. Meantime, the boys and girls born and reared in the State were growing up with temperance instruction in the public schools and with training in favor of law enforcement and prohibition in many ways. Thousands of them reached maturity without having even seen a saloon or place of illicit sale of liquor. Foreign-born peoples who had brought over the attitude toward intoxicants that then prevailed in their native Jand-s were unfriendly to the prohibitory law, but as their children grew up, these youths look at the matter more and more from the American standpoint and not that of the ancestral race. .All these yt-ars prosecutions in the courts were going steadily on, and so many of the defenses and subterfuges that were interposed by law violators were successfully met and overruled by the courts from the lowest to the supreme court that at last there seems no longer any defense to sug~est or anv point to quibble over that has · not already been determineu adversely to those who wi h to violate the law.

1351: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1351 (Senate1917.Jul31.1351)

Nearly 10 years ago the · joint or place of illicit sale of liquor had practically disappeared from the State, except, perhaps, in a very few congested centers or localities of particularly adverse conditions. With the passing of the joint the inducement to violate the law was largely gone, too. The profits of the chance · bootlegger, who carried his · stock about with him on his person, were too small and too uncertain to encourage more than a very few persons, and then of the most «de praved type, to attempt to dispense liquor, nor could their operations be carried on very long until the officials found them out and pros®- cuted them. 'The bootlegger was necessarily largely a trausient character and could not establish any considerable clientele in his brief This judicial district is an average district of the rural parts of Kansas. Ten years ago there were considerable prosecutions for the violation of the liquor law, and these have grown steadily fewer and fewer until a liquor prosecution is rather rare in any county of the district, and at the same time joints are unknown and bootleggers are• scarce. Hardly anyone any longer defends or excuses the violators of this law or upholds the regular use of liquor for beverage purposes . Some money Js still sent out of the State to import liquors for those who drink, but this "is only trivial compared with what won ! d be spent in the open saloon, and this likely wm soon stop, too. Many thousands of inhabitants of Kansas who are under 40 years of age have never in their lives seen a legalized or illicit place of sale of intoxicating liquor or seen liquor sold, unless they have been outside of Kansas. lt is a rare thing to see any person drunk, although such sometimes occurs where liquor is brought into the State. The money thus wasted elsewhere on liquor is used for helpful purposes in Kansas. There is no liquor flavor to the sermons or teachings of the church in Kansas, nor palliation or excuse for the saloon or the use of liquor. For many years politi.cs has been wholly free from the incubus of liquor influences. In no department of business, financial. social, educational, or other activity is there any disposition on part of anyone to curry favor with the liquor interests, but instead all are united against it.

1352: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1352 (Senate1917.Jul31.1352)

With the enfranchisement of women in 1912 the vote was strengthened m favor of prohibition, and the vote for the outlswry of the liquor traffic has been much more than doubled and has made impossible any serious thought of return to old conditions.

1354: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1354 (Senate1917.Jul31.1354)

Judge Thirty-third. Judicial Distr·ict.

1356: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1356 (Senate1917.Jul31.1356)

District ' COURT; EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL District,

1357: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1357 (Senate1917.Jul31.1357)

Wichita, Kans., January 11, 1917. Ron. WILLIA:ll . H. THompson,

1359: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1359 (Senate1917.Jul31.1359)

MY DEAR SENATOR: Replying to your letter of December .30, I write you that prohibition in Kansas i by no means a failure; on the con trary, it is a great . success. In nine-tenths of the State it complet e ly prohibits, and in the other one-tenth the prohibitory law is enforced and observed almost as completely a.s other c rimin a l laws.

1360: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1360 (Senate1917.Jul31.1360)

It is som e time said that there is mere drunkenness in Kansas than in States where they clo not have the · prohibitory law. This · statement is n false a.s false can be and is made only by the friends of the whi ky intere ts.

1361: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1361 (Senate1917.Jul31.1361)

Take the State as a whole, my observation is that there is not onetenth of the drunkenness In Kansas that there is in the wide-open States. Over 90 per cent of the children of Kansas have never seen a saloon; a large majority of the children do not know what a saloon means except from hearsay.

1362: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1362 (Senate1917.Jul31.1362)

What little traffic there is in intoxicating liquors is outlawed. so that it is compelled to hide in secret places. The sale of intoxicating liquors is so b es et with difficulties th-at the ordinary person would not know where to g e t it, and it is only the experienced drinker who does know.

1363: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1363 (Senate1917.Jul31.1363)

The small amount ot dri.nk:ing that- is done in Kansas is almost exclusively confined to the older. men, who acquired the habit before the law was strictly enfor c ed in the larger cities.

1364: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1364 (Senate1917.Jul31.1364)

While - Robert C. Foulston was assistant city attorney he tried 63 cases in the district court in-volving violations of the prohibitory liquor law. He secured 56 convictions on a trial before a jury. There were 4 n<'quittals and 3 di agreements.

1365: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1365 (Senate1917.Jul31.1365)

It goes without saying that _ as drunkenness- decreases, as it has in Kamms, the crimes that are occasioned by drunkenness d-ecrease . Some of our business men who thought that a strict enforcement of the prohibitory law would Injure our city and business .have changed their view and now unhesitatingly state that by reason of the strict enforcement of the law busine s has improved and that people have more money to spend for the necessaries ot life.

1366: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1366 (Senate1917.Jul31.1366)

If Missouri were as dry as Kansas, most ot the liquor traffic that we have now would be de troyed, because the greater part of it now comes through the State of Missouri.

1367: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1367 (Senate1917.Jul31.1367)

This letter may sound like a political argument, but I assure you that it is not. The views herein expressed are drawn from my ob· servation as a citizen of Kansas, a.s a public official engaged in admini s tering the law, and from my observation of conditions in States l If you wish, you may, as requested, use this letter. I am · busily where the prohibitory law is not in effect. l engaged in the trial of cases, so that I can not give you a.s full in· formation as I could do if: I had more leisure.

1371: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1371 (Senate1917.Jul31.1371)

DISTRICT ,COURT, EIGHTEE~ T H JUDICTAL DISTRICT,

1372: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1372 (Senate1917.Jul31.1372)

Wichita, Kans., January s, 1917. lion. W. H. THompson,

1373: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1373 (Senate1917.Jul31.1373)

Uni-ted States Senate, Washington, D. a.

1374: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1374 (Senate1917.Jul31.1374)

DEAR SENATOR: : In answering your inquiry of. December 30 I will briefly reply a.s follows :

1375: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1375 (Senate1917.Jul31.1375)

I am JUst completing my thirteenth year as district judge of the eighteenth judicial district, first division, and have probably tried in that length of time more cases than any other trial judge in the State. Prohibition in Kan as i a great success. . In the thickly populated centers the law is violated more or less, and until we have national prohibition it will be impossible to absolutely prevent the sale of intoxicating liquor.

1376: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1376 (Senate1917.Jul31.1376)

Wichita is a city of about 65.000 people, and by far the most important commercial center of the State . Every term. of court the criminal side of the docket carries a. number of cases for violation of the prohibi­ vote. tory law. But if the question of license or prohibition should be submitted to the voters of Wichita, nine-tenths of them would be in favor of prohibition, and there is no licensed city of 65,000 in the United State that will compare with Wichita for orderliness and lack of drunkenness.

1377: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1377 (Senate1917.Jul31.1377)

It is a rare exception to se a drunken man on the streets, and the benefits of prohibition to the rising generation are inestimable.

1382: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1382 (Senate1917.Jul31.1382)

Wichita, • Kans., January ~. 1917. Senator WILLIAM H. THOMPSON,

1384: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1384 (Senate1917.Jul31.1384)

MY DEAR Sm AND FntE . :m: Your favor of December 30, 1916, is before me and content noted. The important question in your letter is, " Is ;prohibition in Kan as a failure?’ ?" And, speaking from an observation and exp e rienC'e of 37 years in Kansas. I want to say in reply to that question that prohibition in Kansas is nor a failure. And its enforcement in this community has lessened d1 ; drunkenness and crime, and, while it m y judgment liquor will always be used as long as it is made, the cities of Itan as and the various counties ot this State have reduced it to a . minimum. And in my judgment the solution of the. problem is national prnbibition. .

1385: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1385 (Senate1917.Jul31.1385)

As you know, there are no distilleries or breweries in this State; 'but the great difficulty which we encounter is the liquor which is shipped.­ tinto th . e State from our sister State, l\fis ouri, protected by the intersl:ate-commerce law, and under this law the railroads can not refuse a shipment of this ltind.

1386: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1386 (Senate1917.Jul31.1386)

Our liquor in Wichita and mostly in. the State, as I learn, is shipped 1n here from Kansas City, St. Louis, St. Joseph, and Joplin. You can say for me . • • • that liquor has even been shipped into this city by automobile. coming all the way from Joplin; and if the liquor bu s iness and th e manufacture and sale of the same could be curtailed 1n the State of Missouri it would not be at all difficult to enforce prohibition in Kan as.

1387: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1387 (Senate1917.Jul31.1387)

In the evolution of time, if Missouri should ever become dry, Kansas would be absolutely dry.

1388: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1388 (Senate1917.Jul31.1388)

J'ust at this time most of the liquor shipments which come to this portion of the State come from Kansas City, Mo.

1389: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1389 (Senate1917.Jul31.1389)

Your position O? this important question meets with my hearty approvaJ, and you Will find the people of Kansas fully in accord with you. Very fraternally, yours, ,

1391: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1391 (Senate1917.Jul31.1391)

Mayor and Commissioner of Public Safety.

1393: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1393 (Senate1917.Jul31.1393)

Wichita, Kans., January 6, 11J11. Senator WILLIAM H. THompson,

1395: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1395 (Senate1917.Jul31.1395)

l\fy DE A R Sm : I wrote you yesterday at some length on the prohibitim~ question, and in this letter I desii·e to supplement what I said yesterday.

1396: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1396 (Senate1917.Jul31.1396)

I have ~ undoubted information this morning from Capt. Dawson, night captain of my police force, that there are four automobiles oper­ • ating from Joplin, Mo . , to Wichita, hauling booze. I have further undoubted information that most of the troubl e s we have in Wichita now on the liquor question is brought about by operatives in the oil fields in Augusta and Eldorado, Kans., and this booze whi c h they con s ume and procure in Eldorado and Augusta, Kans., is shipped into those towns from St. Joseph, 1\Io.

1397: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1397 (Senate1917.Jul31.1397)

You might call the attention • * 0 to the e facts, and - he would confer a great favor on the people of this locality if he would head off the . booze which !s shipped from Missouri into Kansas.

1400: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1400 (Senate1917.Jul31.1400)

Mayor and Commissioner of Public Safety.

1402: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1402 (Senate1917.Jul31.1402)

OFFICE 011' COUNTY ATTORNEY, SH.AW .' EE COUNTY,

1403: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1403 (Senate1917.Jul31.1403)

Topeka, Kans., January 5, 1911. Hon. WILLIAM H . THompson,

1404: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1404 (Senate1917.Jul31.1404)

United States S e nate, Washington, D. a.

1405: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1405 (Senate1917.Jul31.1405)

DEAR Sir: In answer to your letter of recent date inquiring as to my experience with reference to whether or not prohibition in Kansas is :x · succe s, will ~Y that I a.m now nParing the end of my second term a county attorney of Shawnee County and have h d a splendid opportunity of determining whether or not prohibition prohibits. My Judgment, based on an experience of four years as pro ecuting attorney, is that the prohibitory liquor la.w is as well enforced as any other law on. the statute book , and much more stringently enforced than many of the other criminal statute . ·

1406: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1406 (Senate1917.Jul31.1406)

I have been in many other citl s or- about the s a me population as Topeka in States where saloons still exist, and I believe there is more liquor sold and drunk as a beverage in one day in such saloon cities than in Topeka In an entire year.

1407: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1407 (Senate1917.Jul31.1407)

'Ve have no saloons in Topeka, and no joints. A few bootleggers remain. but they are being so con tantly hounded and pro ecuted by the officers that their business is exceedingly small. There is le s drunkenness in the cities of Kansas than in any other cities of which I have any knowledge.

1408: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1408 (Senate1917.Jul31.1408)

Morally and economically the State has enjoyed marvelous advantages as a result of this law. The crimes which are committed are usually the result of !iquors which have been ordered from Mis ouri and shipped in by express. This can not be prevented under the present law. Real drunkenn e s, as known in saloon cities, 1 such an unusual sight on the streets of Topeka that if a man is slightly under th(' influence of intoxicating liquor he is taken to the police station and charged with being drunk. In sa.loon cities, as a rule, a man is not arrested as a drunk unl ~ s he becomes a public nuisance.

1409: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1409 (Senate1917.Jul31.1409)

As a result of the prohibitory liqucr laws our people generally spend their money on homes for their families and the neces aries of life instead of squandering it In saloons.

1410: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1410 (Senate1917.Jul31.1410)

My deliberate and unprejudiced opinion is that the prohibitory liquor . law · is the wisest and most benefic e nt law that has ever been adopted in the State of Kan as. and if the question was again submitted to a vote of the people prohibition would carry by practically a unanimous

1411: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1411 (Senate1917.Jul31.1411)

Yours, truly, W. E. ATCHISOX, aounty Attomey.

1412: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1412 (Senate1917.Jul31.1412)

DISTRICT COURT, THIRD JT:DICIAL DISTRICT,

1414: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1414 (Senate1917.Jul31.1414)

Topeka, Kans.~ January 4, 1911. Senator WILLIAM H. THO:llPSON,

1416: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1416 (Senate1917.Jul31.1416)

MY DEAR Senator: In reply to your 'inquiry as to the effect of prohibition in Kansas I beg to say that there is no doubt in the minds of a large majority of the people of Kansas as to the succe s of prohibition. I am unable to give you the figures showing the effect ?f. the law as to drunkenness and crime or moral and economical conditions, if such. indeed could be obtained with any degree of accuracy, but I know that the r ults have been highly beneficial. The law is now well enforced in this State, and what liquor business there is is done almost altogether by Small bootleggers and through mail orders, de· liveries being made mostly by express. The law has • not resulted in stopping drinking altogether, but it has, in my judgment, reduced the quantity of liquor drank very largely.

1417: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1417 (Senate1917.Jul31.1417)

Eight or ten years ago, before the brewing companies were ou , ousted from doing business in this State there. were open saloons in th~ larger cities particularly along the Mi ouri lme. These no long e r exist, and practl<'ally the only violation of the law i s through M.le~ by bootleggers in small quantities. Of course it is well understood that the Kan, as law does not attempt to prohibit the purchase of liquor outside of the State or the keeping of the same by individuals for their own private use One of the greatest s tumblin"' blocks in the way of the enforce- ment of the law is the facility with which liquor may be secured from a neighboring State.

1418: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1418 (Senate1917.Jul31.1418)

]'here are, in my judgment, no evil effects resulting from t.he pr.o­ hibitory law but on the contrary, the r e sults have been entirely m the way of the promotion of sobriety and law observance and tbP saving of money for increased expenditures for the betterment of cbQol and homes ano generally for what goes to make life more worth while. Intoxicating liquor, either in its tr a ffic or consumption. nev r contributed anything toward any of these purposes and. never can.

1419: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1419 (Senate1917.Jul31.1419)

Very truly, yours, GEORGE H. WHITCOMB, Judge District Court.

1421: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1421 (Senate1917.Jul31.1421)

. SALINA, KANS., . January 3, 1916. Ho.n. W. li. THOMPSO-N,

1423: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1423 (Senate1917.Jul31.1423)

DEAR Sm: I was very happy to see from all the newspapers that came under my sight that you were one of the leaders for the fight for prohib-ition. Of course, I am of the opinion that that is the way it ought to be, and I congratulate you that you did not fail to measure up to the standards of what the people of Kansas expect of their represen tn ti : ve. - .

1424: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1424 (Senate1917.Jul31.1424)

There is no question, nor can there be any successful controversy over the ' fact that prohibition does prohibit. In our own community here we have practically no drunkenness. Crime of every nature has decreased since the enforcement of the prohibitory law, conservatively. 50 per cent.

1425: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1425 (Senate1917.Jul31.1425)

!Bootlegging is practically a thing of the past, as it is now the practice to send these bootleggers to the penitentiary; and when that 1s done it practically puts an end to the bootlegger.

1426: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1426 (Senate1917.Jul31.1426)

Economically, in our community the enforcement .of the prohibitory liquor law has been the greatest boon . to our growth that could possibly be conceived. . Whereas a few years ago under the ' license 'System we used to have muddy streets, the poor and needy, and a crimeridden community, we now have many miles of pavement, practically no poverty, and a decrease of crime.

1427: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1427 (Senate1917.Jul31.1427)

One prosecutor in this State whom I had the pl~e of hearing prosecute a whisky case, to my mind, aptly expressefl about the only argument that can be put forward for whisky. He said that he would concede that whisky was good for one purpose, and one only, and that was to make a person drunk. • . .

1428: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1428 (Senate1917.Jul31.1428)

I am very sorry that I do not have at hand the facts and figures to substantiate the above conclusions, but if at any time you deem it necessary to procure these facts or figures feel free to call upon me . . and I assure you beyond any question that :when these facts and figures are in your possession you will see that I have been very conservative in my statements.

1429: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1429 (Senate1917.Jul31.1429)

I sincerely trust you will be entirely successful in your fight for prohibition, and, of course, you realize you have the support ot -every Joyal Kansan, for no loyal Kansan in this . age <>f the world will even argue the question · of prohibition as to its merits. for we are in a position to know that prohibition is the -only thing. Wishing you success,

1430: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1430 (Senate1917.Jul31.1430)

Yours, very truly, L. W. HAMNER, County Attorney.

1433: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1433 (Senate1917.Jul31.1433)

Hon. WILLIAM H. THOMPS'ON, Washington, D. *

1434: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1434 (Senate1917.Jul31.1434)

DEAR Sm: I have your le . letter of December 30 to county attorneys of Kansas. ·

1435: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1435 (Senate1917.Jul31.1435)

I am'in sympathy with you in the matter of prohibition, and especially in the matter of upholding the honest condition of affairs in Kansas under prohibition. Prohibition prohibits in Scott County. There is no liquor used in this county e:x:cept what is privately shipped in from Kansas Ci1;~. Mo. There are no · sales and there are no drunks. ',('he writer has lived in communities where there were saloons· in recent years has tra-veled in wet . States and knows and understands the situation in Kansas as compared with those States. There ' are boys and girls in Scott County, I dare say, growing to manhood and womanhood who never · saw a drunken man and who never tasted in­ • toxieating liquor and wouldn't know it if they saw it. The advantageS' of such ~ a community over a wet one morally and economically are very great. The moral standard is higher. The people are . better G!f< 'financially and are able to educate their children and provide not . only the necessities, but the luxuries of life, where with open 'Saloons there would be want and misery. The p-eople of Kansas buy automobiles instead of supporting saloons. The per capita of bank deposits in Scott County .is greater than in any wet county on earth. • Prohibition prohibits in western Kansas, the wet advocates to the · contrary notwithstanding.

1440: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1440 (Senate1917.Jul31.1440)

GOODLAND, KANS., January 4, 1911. • Hon. W. H. THOMPSON.

1442: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1442 (Senate1917.Jul31.1442)

DEAR SENATOR: Yours of December 30 at hand. In reply will say that I have had a great deal of experience along those lines, being mayor of Goodland, Kans., for the past 10 years. I have seen this liquor question handled both ways. with. -open joints and saloons, and for the past five years practically wiped out, except by shipments by express to individuals, and I think we are at least 90 per cent better off than we were before, as we practical1y have no poor people any more. The people in general all pay their debts better, hold their jobs better, and it is a very rare thing to see a person under the influe.nce of liquor. While I am not a strict prohibitionist myself, I am sur~ against the saloons, for I know we are much better off without them. Anything further that we can benefit please let us know. You c:an u e my opinion in any way you desire.

1445: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1445 (Senate1917.Jul31.1445)

OF.b"ICE OF SHlllRlFF OF SHERMAN COUNTY,

1446: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1446 (Senate1917.Jul31.1446)

Goodland, Ka11s., January s, 19t:1. lli. THOMPSON,

1448: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1448 (Senate1917.Jul31.1448)

Sm: Received your letter asking about prohibition in our county. I have lived here 13 years; came from Nebraska here. I think prohibition does prohibit to certain extent, and does more so as it gets older and stronger. We don't have very much trouble with booze dealers any more.

1449: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1449 (Senate1917.Jul31.1449)

Yours, respectfully, H. J. PIPER, Sheriff. GOODLAND, KANs.; January ,f, 19fl. llon. WILLUM H. · THOMPSON,

1451: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1451 (Senate1917.Jul31.1451)

1\fy DEAR SENATOR: I am in receipt of your communication under date of December 30, 1916, in regard to prohibition in Kansas, and I am only too pleased to give you my views on this subject, as I am an ardent supporter of the prohibition cause,

1452: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1452 (Senate1917.Jul31.1452)

I am only a young man, but I believe I can say with authority that prohibition is not a failure in our State. I was born and reared in Topeka, Kans., having lived there 25 years, and I was 20 years of ago before I ever saw the outside door of a saloon, and then I had to go to Kansas City, 1\lo., to see that. I can further say that I have never seen the Inside o a saloon, nor have I ever touched a drop of liquor in any shape or form, and I owe the fact _ that I can make that statement to prohibition in -our State.

1453: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1453 (Senate1917.Jul31.1453)

To tbe man that can have his liquor shipped to him prohibition does not mean much, but to the growing youth of our community prohibition is most assuredly a success. Of Uie 15 criminal cases brought by me in the justice court and district court of our county, 9 of them were • 11· the actions of men while in an intoxicated condition. Of course, in this western country we are confronted with this evil, and they do not seem to comprehend that they are breaking the law, but we have less insani-::y, higher morals, and a more progressive clasa oi people than in towns · of the same size which do not prohibit the sale of liquors.

1454: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1454 (Senate1917.Jul31.1454)

Trusting I have bE!en able to give some information, although perhaps not JUst what you . desire, and assuring you that I am with you in you stand on the question and will be only too glad to aid further, I am,

1459: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1459 (Senate1917.Jul31.1459)

OaldtoelZ, Kans., January 5, 1911. : i Hon. W. H. THOMPSON, Washington, D. 0. .· ?~.""- DEAR Sm: Replying to yours of the 3d of December, I beg to · say t. ..... ~ ... , that I have been a resident of this city for the past 30 or more years. I x.'· am serving my third term as mayor and have served two terms as councilman. My occupation during that time has been t . that of a cattle buyer, and I have owned or had an interest in a meat market most of the time, and so have been in close tcuch with the public and Jn a good position to note the working of the prohibition law. I would also say that I am not a total abstainer myself, but have used liquor very moderately during my life.

1460: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1460 (Senate1917.Jul31.1460)

My conclusions regarding prohibition . formed from a long observation of its workings are that prohibition does prohibit in spite of the fact of the liquor · interests' arguments to the contrary. There is no ~ ...: ~ law, State or Federal, but what is broken with more or less frequency. .. • , ""'I I> .. .. ._, .: -·-·, I could point out laws in this city which are evaded oftener than the .f prohibition law. ·

1461: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1461 (Senate1917.Jul31.1461)

Regarding the benefits of prohibition, I believe that • very large I-.~ ; majority of the citizens of our State will tell you that it is the one law on our statute books that has done more than any other to help a. large proportion of our citizens. I could point out numerous instances here of me.n when the saloons or joints were running whose children were poorly clothed and often hungry, and what few bills they were able tn contract · unpaid, who, since liquor has not \x'en so easily attainable, are able to pay what.they owe, clothe and feed their families properly, ~t ('" and make good citizens . . Previous to the enforcement of prohibition the · ... 't .\ . ...:,,., police court fines ran into hundreds of dollars per month, while for the . : whole of last year (1916) the total fines collected for all misdemeanors ~ '~~.~ · .... ~ .. , was $94. .. · .. :s In conclusion I will say that you have my hearty indorsement of your work along this line and may make any use of this letter you wish, and I hope · that WI? . will not have long to wait for a properly enforced '.:f;.~:~ -/· .... .. ·~. , ... national prohibition law. 0 ‘ t..

1464: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1464 (Senate1917.Jul31.1464)

OFFICE OF SHERIFF OB' WASHINGTON COUNTY, . ;_:,,.; ·.:

1465: Senate, July 31, 1917, ¶ 1465 (Senate1917.Jul31.1465)

Washington, KatUJ., January 3, _ 1911. • , '."· · . · · '. ~-

Connections graph

Enter all results↑ ↓ then Enter to open oneTry “Federalist 51”, “Article I, Section 8”, “Amendment 14”

Where you've been

    The places you have read, newest first, kept in this browser only. Nothing is sent anywhere.